posted
Unfortunately the thread is too old is now gone, but there was a thread called "Thread killer." People were discussing why it seemed as though they seemed to kill threads fairly regularly.
The topic became a discussion of a couple things. One, does a particular topic have a certain life to it, and that thread will die after a time anyway? Two, is it possible that the person who does kill the thread isn't the person who posts last?
I went with the second. I think frequently the thread dies because either a concensus has been reached (yeah right), people get sick of arguing (again fairly uncommon), nobody has said anything new for a while (that's the real one), or something more important/interesting came up. Sometimes the thread is dead, and a few people try to breathe some life back into it, and maybe get 2-3 more posts, but it was all the life-support. Unplug the machine, and the thread just dies again.
(Regarding other thread) I don't know which threads you're referring to, Fossil (*After typing this, I realized by virtue of additional posts that you were referring to the LOTR Wenches thread, and possibly others). For a long time, I figured I held the honor, as being the person who killed the "I, Christ" thread by Thor, at post #513. Back then, I believe it was the longest thread there had ever been.
So since that original thread is gone, why not have the discussion again? What causes a thread to be killed? (And I'm not talking the UBB errors that occasionally cause post #800 to appear on page 7.) With a different group of people, maybe we'll come to different conclusions?
Regardless, I hope Fossil doesn't leave over it. I can give him better reasons. (See? When I use a smilie, you'd better take it seriously.)
posted
It's terrible, but every time Mr. Moose signs his name "Pop" I involuntarily think "...sicle." Does that make me a bad person, or just shallow? (I never said I wasn't shallow.)
*posted just in case no one else responds and Fossil finds the sacrificial knife in his hands yet again* (btw, Fossil, I'm sorry if you are not a he)
posted
Yeah, but if I sign it "Pap" I involuntarily think "smear."
<Reminding self that it's around the time that I mentioned in the "Slow Times on Hatrack..." thread, so I don't need to feel bad that the thread has only gotten two responses from others, one of which was baited.>
posted
*shudder* Who would want to think something so disgusting?
If it is any further comfort, I think this thread falls under the 'everyone agrees and has nothing to add' category of small threads. I, of course, am an exception, as is clear by my two posts here.
posted
OK, this has gone on long enough. I have to ask. What is it with onanism? I looked it up so I know what it means now but when did it become a running joke? What is the backstory here?
Posts: 2762 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
There was an "Onanism" thread back about a month ago. It has become somewhat of a joke, but I can't remember where Papa came into the onanism joke.
Posts: 5879 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
LOL at myself!!! The wording was totally unintentional!!! I wish I was clever enough to have done that on purpose! Posts: 5879 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lissande... there was a spate of threads regarding the ethics of masturbation awhile back and I think Papa Moose had the lowest threshold of tolerance for them.
It wasn't really much of a discussion, but Pap has since then been very thankful that other threads did not devolve into discussions of self-gratification.
And there you have it.
EDIT: I started writing this and then someone rang the doorbell, so I just finished it and didn't look to see if anyone had answered the question yet.
Ludosti, it SOOoooo har, um difficult to avoid double-entendres when discussing this topic.
[This message has been edited by Bob_Scopatz (edited May 08, 2002).]
posted
Ah, the rumors that fly. I simply chose not to take part in the Onanism thread (for the most part), because it involved others sharing information I really didn't want to know. It's sort of humorous that I killed that thread.
After that, there were a number of thread topics that struck me as funny, when related to the topic of Onanism (another term for masturbation, possibly a misnomer, based on the Biblical character Onan I believe). Thread titles like "It's finally come -or- I'm getting older," "It's a big, big, big mess..." and "Frustration Relief Center." So I posted on these threads <Relieved this isn't another Onanism thread> for the sake of humor. That's all.
posted
The Onanism thread was a little to weird for my tastes. (btw,Lissande; I am a guy. What told you otherwise? )
Posts: 995 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey Pop... I believe the thread you're talking about was Yebor's Worry thread that turned into a big contest until he deleted it... The source of about three hundered of my posts too... Posts: 4292 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think there should be a stigmata about sexual topics. Its a huge part of people's lives, and its nothing to be ashamed of. I know this is a fairly conservative board though, so most people get all touchy when it comes to such things.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was actually about to start this thread and ask why I keep killing threads. The only thing I can think of is that I express my opinion too strongly and no one in the community really knows me yet, so they don't want to bother responding/arguing. Maybe I'm just being too self-conscious, or maybe I just type so much that nobody wants to read what I wrote. Case in point: the Book Suggestions thread . . .
. . . if it's still around. I was really hoping someone would challenge me on some of the assertions I made, since they were over the top and smacking a little of know-it-all, but no one seemed to care, and the thread rapidly died.
posted
One kills a thread by posting something and then the thread just fades out of existance. and to think I almost left Hatrack over that.
Posts: 995 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, I had caught on to about half of that. Thank you all for filling in the gaps. *inspects for double entendre* OK. All clear. (I had forgotten about Onan until so many people were talking about him that I looked the word up in the dictionary...rendering perspicacious the many previously obscure comments I'd seen...)
posted
Wandering through old posts, and I say Lissande wins. This thread was indeed killed -- two and a half months later only counts as resurrection.
Posts: 6213 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
i think you gotta wait till everyone's read the thread and posted on it before it escapes the page.
What's even worse than being a thread killer is posting a topic and having no one respond. Or having it swing to a completely unrelated topic early on.
posted
Most of the time it just gets pushed onto the second page and then there's pretty much nothing you can do about it.
Posts: 3056 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, and as a champion creater of threads that never get off the ground, I can say there is nothing more pathetic than to have the last post on your own thread and watch is slowly sink onto the second page.
Well, there is one thing more pathetic, and that is to add a post after your last post just to bump it back up to the top. (I speak for myself. I just feel pathetic when I do it.)
And I'm tempted all the time. I seldom get a "page two" on a thread I've started.
posted
Sometimes I'll go back to a thread that I know I killed and just edit the last message to gloat over the corpse. No one ever notices, but it's just nice to know it's out there.
::sticks tongue out at Ralphie::
::hopes that this doesn't get resurrected::
[This message has been edited by jehovoid (edited July 24, 2002).]
posted
I've read your corpse gloating, Jeffrey. Why would I strip you of such a feat by posting after it? It would be most unseemly.
Posts: 7600 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
(Im doing this to try to lighten the serial killer thing. Sorry if I offend....)
There are three types of profiles for thread killers. A serial thread killer, a terrorist thread killer and a thrill thread killer.
Serial thread killers dont kill threads randomly. Terrorist thread killers threaten to kill threads again and again until their demands are met. Thrill thread killers get joy out of randomly killing threads.
posted
*bump* yeah, i was searching for the Random Thread (can anyone find it? i can't...) and stumbled upon this, which gave me many good laughs and screamed to me to be bumpadeebumped.
posted
I always figure that my threads die because they weren't interesting enough for people to write about. I was pretty tickled a couple weeks ago when I had three threads staying on the first page and I wasn't bumping them. None of them had anything to do topically with any of the others either. I thought the college football thread was dead and someone else bumped it. Anyway I just figured thread death was part of the Hatrack life cycle.
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: I was pretty tickled a couple weeks ago when I had three threads staying on the first page and I wasn't bumping them.
I like to reply to posters, regardless of whether they are posting on my thread or not. So I'm probably considered a self-thread bumper. How do you participate and reply without bumping?
I do try to have the self-control and manners to let a thread die...because it's ready and it's time has come.
BannaOj...as a wise poster once told me...
quote: Hatrack can be a sluggish and unpredictable creature; you should never take its unresponsiveness as a measure for the quality of your posts!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
(See? When I use a smilie, you'd better take it seriously.)
and to think I almost left Hatrack over that.
) What about you poeple?
